"Every method requires assumptions. Every human intellectual endeavor is based on assumptions," No. "and refusing to acknowledge them is not helpful to understanding the proper scope or application of those endeavors." You are free to play with assumptions all you want, but you can not force them on, or into logical schemes that never contained them. The scientific method requires only that a hypothesis be formulated and then supported by hard evidence if it is to stand and become theory. There are no assumptions contained therein. "Also, methodological naturalism cannot be a conclusion of the scientific method, since it would not be demonstrable through the scientific method, simply because you cannot prove a negative. Go ahead and try, Ill be waiting." Proof only applies to mathematics, all other claims, contentions, ect... are supported by evidence. the measure of truth is the measure of the evidence and ogic supporting it. I said methodological naturalism is based on conclusions from the scientific metho.

I think you are being too hard on Spunkets. There are, in fact, several assumptions which science makes regarding the scientific method. Science is actually built on philosophy. Science is a slave to philosophy and cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and therefore cannot be the result of that search. For example scientists, by faith, that reason and scientific method allow an accurate understanding of the world around them. The scientific naturalist cannot prove the tools of science-the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity or the reliability of observations by running an experiment. The scientist simply has to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment. The physicalist cannot epistemologically account for logic, reason, or rational thought-they are metaphysical concepts and not made of matter or energy. If materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true, including the theory of materialism. Chemicals cannot evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals do not reason-they react. If materialism were true then determinism is true and what goes on inside your head would be the same as what goes on inside Spunkets head. But is seems, from the reading, they are not the same. Reason itself requires faith because a defense of reason by reason is circular and therefore worthless.

Do you really understand the question you put forth-do you understand what a sentient rational being is? I would simply ask you the following: Why and how would brute matter which is not sentient, not conscious of surroundings give rise to conscious, sentient beings. How can it give what it does not have to give. Perhaps this is what Spunket was referring to regarding the reference to a theistic universe. I think he was referencing the metaphysical..that which is after physics. I am sentinent, Spunket is sentient, you are sentient....three minds which behave differently. As I have said several times, if the scientific naturalist, atheist is devoted to physicalism and the exclusivity of scientific method, then for you to tell your wife that you love her has no more meaning than for you to tell her that you have a gastrointestinal pain or an itch,...and is therefore meaningless.

I did not mean to interject into your conversation with Spunket. Forgive the interruption, please.

"For example scientists, by faith, that reason and scientific method allow an accurate understanding of the world around them"

Faith is belief in what someone says, w/o, or with little evidence supporting the claim. Sentience is what allows for an accurate knowledge aquisition and rational capacity provides for organization and understanding. There are no assumptions required, philosophical, or otherwise.

"The scientific naturalist cannot prove the tools of science-the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity or the reliability of observations by running an experiment.

The scientist can. A scientist is not a scientific naturalist, although a scientific naturalist may be a scientist in some instances. Logic contains proofs. The reliablity of observations depends on the fact that A=A, the identity concept in logic. It applies to reality, because if it is not true, then something would contradict itself, or become what it is not arbitrarily.

Causality depends on the conservation of energy and the action integral. There are no assumptions needed.

"The scientist simply has to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment.

No. They can be and are tested without assumption and they're used w/o assumption.

"The physicalist cannot epistemologically account for logic, reason, or rational thought-they are metaphysical concepts and not made of matter or energy."

Logic, reason and rational thought are functions of rational machines, which are physical configurations of energy. Sentience is also a function of a rational machine, which is dependent on physics to provide for the machinery.

"For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true,"

That's a ridiculous conclusion.

"Chemicals cannot evaluate whether or not a theory is true"

Machines can and the most common are composed of chemicals. Sentient rational machines can sense, percieve, create and provide for rational processing.

"If materialism were true then determinism is true and what goes on inside your head would be the same as what goes on inside Spunkets head."

No. Although the brains are different networks and hold different beliefs, one of the characteristics of sentient rational machines is free will.

"Reason itself requires faith because a defense of reason by reason is circular and therefore worthless."

Faith is simply a belief in what someone says based on trust. Faith is not required to reason, although it's usuful to minimize the man hours spent on trying to know, or understand something. Also, the defense of anyhting requires reason, otherwise it's just arbitrary BS.

"Why and how would brute matter which is not sentient, not conscious of surroundings give rise to conscious, sentient beings."

Obviously you're not aware that the various forms and particles of energy have properties, which are sentient. What makes you think that the interactions between particles should be referred to as brutish, rather than the fundamental elements of sentience and perception?

"I think he was referencing the metaphysical..that which is after physics."

The physics is sufficient. No metaphysics is needed.

"As I have said several times, if the scientific naturalist, atheist is devoted to physicalism and the exclusivity of scientific method, then for you to tell your wife that you love her has no more meaning than for you to tell her that you have a gastrointestinal pain or an itch,...and is therefore meaningless."

This is ridiculous. You claim it has no meaning, therefore it has no meaning! Rubbish!